I'm not a big believer in revolutions. What people call revolutions in technology were more of a shift in perception - from big machines to PC's (the technology just evolved, fairly slowly at that), and from PC's to the internet. The next "revolution" is going to be the same thing - not about the technology itself being revolutionary, but a shift in how you look at it and how you use it.

That's what makes Linux so good: you put in something, and that effort multiplies. It's a positive feedback cycle.

The idea of abstracting away the one thing that must be blindingly fast, the kernel, is inherently counter productive.

Excusing bad programming is a shooting offence, no matter what the circumstances.

Linux has definitely made a lot of sense even in a purely materialistic sense.

Helsinki may not be as cold as you make it out to be, but California is still a lot nicer. I don't remember the last time I couldn't walk around in shorts all day.

While we ended up having several core maintainers use BitKeeper - it was free to use for open source projects - it never got ubiquitous. So it helped kernel development, but there were still pain points.